Legal Opinion

Miller v. Lobdell

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 6, 1952No. Civ. 4448PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMussell, J.

Respondents moved the dismissal of the appeal herein on the ground that appellants have voluntarily accepted substantial benefits of the judgment and therefore are estopped and barred from the right to appeal.

Statement of Facts

On July 2, 1947, respondents purchased from appellant William B. Miller, a hotel, bathhouse, cabins and real property situated in Orange County. On July 21, 1949, Miller filed an action against the Lobdells to foreclose a chattel mortgage given by them as security for payment of a promissory note in the sum of $29,000. The Lobdells, on August 24, 1949, filed an action…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Schubert v. ReichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Alamitos Land Co. v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Greenspot Desert Inns, Inc. v. RoyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. H. D. Arnaiz Ltd. v. County of San JoaquinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  2. The Cherokee Nation, and Its Attorneys, Paul M. Niebell, Earl Boyd Pierce, George E. Norvell, and Dennis W. Bushyhead v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1966
  3. Lobdell v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  4. H. D. Arnaiz Ltd. v. County of San JoaquinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API